Found the image with a search for transient lunar phenomena, whydidn't I think of that before? Attributed to everything from out-gassing, lighting anomalies,buried nuclear power plants, you name it, but not to plasma.

In 1958, Aristarchus crater's strange phenomena were observed by Russian astronomer N. Kozyrev. They were also reported by the crew of Apollo 11.

In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

GaryN wrote:Just had this sent to me from a friend, but he doesn't remember where it is from. I can't search images on TB, so maybe if anyonerecognises it, they can point me to the appropriate post.http://www3.telus.net/myworld/eneverse/crater_glow.jpgIf this isn't the perfect example of crater formation, or perhapsan ongoing modification, then I don't know what is. I am seeing a plasma or ionised moon dust being pulled in from the surroundingarea, perhaps triggering formation of rim craters now and then,being sucked down towards the center, and probably causing thosedownward pointing dendritic ridges that we see at the inner top ofsome craters. The center looks hexagonal. This must have been taken from an orbiter or lander with theirUV sensitive high speed film. Maybe NASA was hiding this, isn't itconclusive evidence, if not of crater formation, then at leastmodification, and the reason for those light or UV flashes seenfrom Earth sometimes?

Can you get some more info on this? I'm sure you are aware that this matches in many ways features made during CRT experiments. In those instances a burst of energy goesalong with the removal of material to the probe in a single event. That point on the CRTis being completely discharged. I've wondered out loud if a localized discharge can occurjust because of atmospheric condition,, a buildup and then a micro burst. The appearanceof activity above this event seems to be quite uniform. The central dog-legged column suredraws my attention.

You'll see in a video on youtube, at channel 'dahlenaz07', what could be considered a micro burstbut that didn't make a crater, like other smaller discharges made during other experiments.http://para-az.com/isocraters.html d..z

GaryN wrote:Found the image with a search for transient lunar phenomena, whydidn't I think of that before? :roll: Attributed to everything from out-gassing, lighting anomalies,buried nuclear power plants, you name it, but not to plasma.

In 1958, Aristarchus crater's strange phenomena were observed by Russian astronomer N. Kozyrev. They were also reported by the crew of Apollo 11.

A determination of when this occurred, with reference to the day-side/night-side boundery, wouldbe a detail i'd suggest be focused upon. It seems like a logical place for the release of charge. i think this has been suggested by others as well.. d...z

GaryN wrote:Found the image with a search for transient lunar phenomena, whydidn't I think of that before? Attributed to everything from out-gassing, lighting anomalies,buried nuclear power plants, you name it, but not to plasma.

In 1958, Aristarchus crater's strange phenomena were observed by Russian astronomer N. Kozyrev. They were also reported by the crew of Apollo 11.

The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

I can't explain crater formation, but I do have an observation about craters which contradicts the theory of their formation by impact.

Nearly every crater I've ever seen pictures of in the solar system – whether on our moon, another moon or on another planet – are perfectly circular. Surely this requires that the falling body strike the moon or planet at 90o

Yet a falling body will (I think) always strike the moon or planet at an oblique angle as gravity pulls it in and therefore will always leave an elongated impact crater. Even if only slightly.

Small elongated craters can be seen from photographs of where small meteors have hit the earth close to a handy photographer.

But I have not counted even ONE elongated crater in all the pictures that I have seen of craters on our moon, other moons and other planets.

Doesn't(/can't) this disprove/falsify the theory of crater formation by impact ?

I completely agree with this, this is also my observation! Good stuff! Around 90' is also what I have been suggesting, I think if a small body comes in at a shallower angle I believe that in interation of the negatively charged bodies maybe enough to disuade the impact, in effect, altering the objects trajectory. I also believe the reason why the Tunguska asteroid cannot be found is because the interaction of the negative charge of the Earth and the asteroid was enough to cause the asteroid to explode.

* There are plenty of oblong craters on Earth, though.* Mind, have you seen the TPODs on the Tunguska event? They certainly agree that the meteor exploded before impact (due to electric discharge). They also suggest it was one of the Taurid meteor stream meteors.

Years ago I posed the question about craters being always round to a well known astronomer lady seen frequently as a spokesperson for mainstream magazines. Her email address was available so I contacted her with the question. Her answer was that impacts on space objects striking from any angle will always produce a perfect circle. I thought of the oblong lakes in the Carolinas but I didn't want to email her anymore. plasmatoy

larryduane100 wrote:Years ago I posed the question about craters being always round to a well known astronomer lady seen frequently as a spokesperson for mainstream magazines. Her email address was available so I contacted her with the question. Her answer was that impacts on space objects striking from any angle will always produce a perfect circle. I thought of the oblong lakes in the Carolinas but I didn't want to email her anymore. plasmatoy

Do you still have a link or contact info,,, i got to hear her explanation for that one. d..z

This is cut and pasted from the email I received from an astrophysicist. The > sign indicates a portion of my question to the scientist that was cut and pasted by the scientist into the answering email.

"> I am wondering if you give any credence at all to many of the craters on> the moon (and other solar system bodies)being created by electrical etching.

No, primarily because there is no credible source for such "electricbolts" in the solar system, neither have any been observed. The otherphenomena you mention can be easily explained by processes we observe andunderstand.

> prevalent in the past. Electrical cratering would explain why craters are> round. It seems unreasonable to assume all meteors strike perpendicular but

You are correct that most meteors do not strike perpendicular to thesurface. However, it turns out that any projectile, at any angle, if itis moving fast enough, will produce a round crater. We have donecontrolled laboratory experiments to verify this. Most meteors are movingquite fast (~15 km/s) and produce round craters. Furthermore, we canoften determine what angle a meteor impacted from the symmetry (or lackthereof) of its ejecta pattern. Again we do lab experiments and comparethose results with what we see on planets."

[Expert said:] we do lab experiments and compare those results with what we see on planets.

* But they ignore plasma experiments.

No, [craters are not formed electrically] primarily because there is no credible source for such "electric bolts" in the solar system, neither have any been observed. The other phenomena you mention can be easily explained by processes we observe and understand.

The email from the scientist is dated March 22, 2006. As stated above, I no longer wished to carry on a correspondence with the "scientist". My hope was to start a conversation about the claim that any angle of impact on a moon(or other body)results in a round crater(explaining crater formation being the subject of this thread). I have never seen any mention of this breathtaking claim in 5 years of TPODS since the email. This thread reminded me of that old email so I dug it up and I now ask-does it even sound plausible that this could be so? I am not able to blast away at dirt from different angles with rocks(?) to experimentally investigate this. It sure seems wrong. Larry

* It sounds like impacts at angles may result in round craters, as is claimed below. That's why I didn't include that in the list of anomalies that support the electrical formation of craters. It seems likely to me that electrical effects will occur at all high-speed impacts, because of the high heat and ionization such impacts cause. The question is what percentage of impact features are electrical effects and what percentage are gravitational etc.http://www.rhprep.org/phorton/MeteorNew.htm

Barringer, however, had experimented by firing rifle bullets into rocks and mud, and had discovered that a projectile arriving at an oblique angle would nevertheless make a round hole. In 1923, Barringer's 12-year-old son Richard published an article in Popular Astronomy, using his father's rifle experiments to argue for the impact origin of the lunar craters; Barringer himself repeated the arguments a short time later in the Scientific American. The conclusive arguments in the lunar debate were provided by astronomers such as A. C. Gifford, who demonstrated that the force of an impact at astronomical speeds would result in the explosion of the meteorite. Whatever the original angle of impact, the result would be a circular crater.

What is to be said concerning the origins of the following craters on our Moon, situated in Mare Fecunditatis...'Messier and Messier A' ie:

and of course, their long tendrils:

Seems like a glancing blow to me and they both are very huge, measuring some 11 kilometers and 8 kilometers in length respectively and around a kilometer in depth...and as you can see they are obviously not circular, being themselves quite elongated and the exposed regolith to me suggests comparative recentness.